APHC010181882025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3879/2025 Between: S Krishna Kumar ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SRINATH ATMAKUR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity „the BNSS‟) by the Petitioner/Accused, for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.15 of 2025 of Tirumala I Town Police Station, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 316 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short „the BNS‟). 2 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution is that prior to 14.03.2025 at Parakamani, TTD, Tirumala the defacto complainant was entrusted with the responsible duty of depositing Srivari offerings (foreign currencies) pertaining to the S.V.Temple, Chennai, in the Parakamani of Tirumala. On 06.10.2024, while performing his regular duty, he was supposed to deposit 950 pieces of foreign currency notes belonging to different countries at the Parakamani of Tirumala. However, he replaced higher denomination currency notes with lower denomination ones and handed over them at the Parakamani, maintaining the total number of 950 pieces of foreign currency notes and approximate misappropriation of foreign currency to a tune of Rs.6,74,047.30/-. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 3. Mr.SrinathAtmakur, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. The Petitioner is the sole earning member of his family, and his arrest would cause irreparable hardship to his dependents. The Petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit and proper for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Petitioner has got fixed abode. 4. It is further submitted that the Parakamani is conducted in the presence of AEO/Dy. EO, Superintendent, Senior Assistant, Junior Assistant, Attenders, Volunteers, Vigilance Staff (Control Room) at the Prayer Hall and the said 3 Parakamani is exclusively recorded under CCTV Surveillance and as such the commission of misappropriation of foreign currency by the petitioner/accused as alleged in the report is absolutely false. The allegation that the volunteers who participated in the Parakamani and that they have prepared a rough unsigned work sheet on 06.10.2024 is absolutely false. 5. It is further submitted that there is no recovery attributable to the Petitioner and custodial interrogation is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioner has cooperated with the investigation and there is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Accused in the interest of justice. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: 6. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed granting of pre-arrest bail contending that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is imperative for eliciting material facts. It is submitted that if the Petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, there is a grave apprehension that he may not cooperate with the investigation and may evade the process of law. 7. It is submitted that in the enquiry it was found that comparing the photocopy of the rough note (listing a total of 950 notes) with the entries in the Chennai Parakamani Ledger Invoice on 06.10.2024, discrepancies were found 4 in all the country denominations. It was detected that higher denominations were removed and replaced with lower ones to match the total of 950 notes. 8. It is further urged that the Petitioner may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, thereby obstructing the fair and impartial investigation. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the potential risk to the progress of the investigation, and it is prayed that the instant bail application be dismissed. 9. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 10. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail?” ANALYSIS: 11. The petitioner is a permanent employee of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (hereinafter referred to as „T.T.D.‟). He was earlier kept under suspension pending enquiry, later he was reinstated. In the report, as well as in the statement of L.W.1, the Assistant Executive Officer, T.T.D., Chennai, it is clearly stated that based on the T.T.D. Vigilance Report, the petitioner/accused, who is a Senior Assistant, did not enter 950 pieces of foreign currencycategorized by denominationin the Parakamani Register on 06.10.2024, citing space constraints to the Security staff.On that the Security Guard, Sri B.Singara Babu, took a photograph of the rough unsigned 5 worksheet prepared by the Parakamani Volunteers on 06.10.2024. Comparing the photo copy of the rough notes (listing a total of 950 notes) with the entries in the Parakamani ledger invoice dated 06.10.2024, discrepancies were found in all the country denominations. It was detected that higher denominations were removed and replaced with lower ones to match the total of 950 Nos. The TTD Vigilance Wing‟s investigation dated 19.02.2025 revealed an approximate misappropriation of foreign currency to a tune of Rs.6,74,047.30 as detailed in the report. Along with the First Information Report, the defacto complainant also attached T.T.D. Vigilance Report which reveals the above facts. 12. In view of these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail, as it would amount to providing a shield or protection to a person against who specific overt acts attributed with a report of Vigilance Department, or a license for the commission of cognizable and non-bailable offences, which is impermissible as per the decisions of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Panjab1and Sushila Aggarwal v. State of (NCT of Delhi)2.Hence, there are no merits in the petition. 13. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 15.09.2025 S D P 1(1980) 2 SCC 565 2(2020) 5 SCC 1 6 03 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3879 of 2025 Date:15.09.2025 S D P